Kuribo64
Views: 7,908,105 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
01-19-18 04:22 PM
Guest:

0 users reading net neutrality | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - net neutrality New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Swingball
(post deleted) #91483

Marionumber1
Posted on 11-27-17 10:18 PM Link | #91484
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
For the articles I did link, they don't seem to have a reputation for being terrible at reporting so I maybe it's a good thing I shared.


Well, the website of an admitted a former spy should have been considered suspect from the beginning. Of course there was going to be a major slant against whistleblowers and leakers, as well as an undercurrent of the "US is the savior of the free world" meme. But neither of the news articles you shared made any convincing points about Assange being a Russian asset, even if their reputation wasn't that of a fake news site.

Their accusation of Soros funding things as their comeback or their accusations of critics as being "Hillary shills" do raise a stink, as well as their threatening journalists. I generally call honesty into question whenever somebody brings up Soros conspiracies.


Well, I don't view Soros as the evil boogeyman that most right-wingers do, and I like some of his policies, including (the topic of this thread!) his support for net neutrality. But he's open to criticism in the exact same way that Hillary would be, and just like Hillary, it's his foreign policy that's particularly atrocious. Belsaw gave a good example, and "open society" is generally a code-word for installing governments compliant with US policy.

And like I said, Assange's quote in that tweet did not seem to be defending Putin, but pointing out how US elites focus on making Russia look bad using the exact same things that the US is guilty of. We are a gangster state just like Russia, where elites break laws with impunity, citizens who threaten those in power literally get killed on US soil, and few seem to care.

"It is disappointing to see Daily Dot pushing the Hillary Clinton campaign’s neo-McCarthyist conspiracy theories about critical media." (WikiLeaks threatened to retaliate against the reporters if they pursued the story: “Go right ahead,” they said, “but you can be sure we will return the favour one day.”)
this entire quote is just... ugh


I don't see what's objectionable about the quote. The drive to smear Wikileaks, and other news sources critical of those holding power in the US - like Consortium News, The Intercept, Counterpunch, Mint Press, etc. - as Russian propaganda is certainly neo-McCarthyism, hearkening back to when the red scare was similarly used to call leftists communists, and when CIA "stay behind" armies as part of Operation Gladio claimed to be fighting communists when their real goal was crushing leftist politics in Europe.

GalacticPirate
Posted on 11-28-17 03:56 PM Link | #91489
I never cared about Clinton or Soros, however I care about Trump and his army of blind conspiration theorist calling anything critcal towards them "fake news" while largely contributing to the increase of fake news quantity over the Internet. Nowadays any criticism towards the current US government is called "media controlled by Soros" or "Clintonists". Clinton may not be the best in terms of transparency bit at least has some sort of brain, unlike Donald J. Dump. Now those idiots even call the EU controlled by Soros even though most of us never heard of Soros anytime. The "fake news" strategy is used by populists everywhere. Here in France the far-left party LFI basically calls "shit dishonest media" any media that analyses Mélenchon's speeches and show the bunch of lies he dumps every week.

"open society" is generally a code-word for installing governments compliant with US policy.

Funny you're saying that, because Trumpers are claming the opposite, i.e. noone trusts the US anymore because "Trump won't agree with everything the rest of the world proposes like Obama".
Anyways, after more than a year, I've analyzed Trump's behavior to notice any pattern that'd show a form of intelligence or "planned idiocy", i.e. talking like a child on purpose to please rednecks.
There is none. Trump is, like I thought, only an idiotic child who acts basically at random and shouts his brainfarts on Twitter.

Back on topic, I am neutral about net neutrality. To me, it doesn't really do any difference. We don't need to remove it, neither do we need to protect it like if it was some kind of sacred object.

Marionumber1
Posted on 11-28-17 04:22 PM Link | #91491
Posted by GalacticPirate
Funny you're saying that, because Trumpers are claming the opposite, i.e. noone trusts the US anymore because "Trump won't agree with everything the rest of the world proposes like Obama".


Well, I'm not a Trump supporter and I don't care what they think, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to what I said. I've always been critical of both US political parties.

Belsaw
Posted on 11-28-17 09:14 PM Link | #91498
Posted by GalacticPirate
The "fake news" strategy is used by populists everywhere. Here in France the far-left party LFI basically calls "shit dishonest media" any media that analyses Mélenchon's speeches and show the bunch of lies he dumps every week.


I'm sorry but I do think LFI have valid concerns here. There is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media. Populism isn't inherently bad depending on what populists are advocating. Huey Long was a populist. Bernie Sanders is a populist. Donald Trump on the other hand, is an example of a bad populist.

Prior to Donna Brazile's confirmation that the DNC rigged the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders was character asssassinated by much of the MSM. Interestingly, Fox News and Breitbart were kinda defending Sanders but that was because it fit their right-wing narrative. Anyway, the MSM would often make hit pieces on Sanders, accusing him of being a "Russian-paid propagandist" and even a "white supremacist enabler". I kid you not, that is not a satirical article. It is some r/nottheonion-tier fake news.

Then you have NBC falsely claiming "gamers are facilitating the Alt-Right". Well then, how do they explain COD:WWII and Wolfenstein? In the freedom of speech thread, I stated that the violent anarchists in Berkeley act eerily similar to the Nazi Brownshirts in Weimar Germany. According to The Daily Banter (ugh) I am "basically a fascist" for saying that. By their logic, anyone who compares Stalin to Hitler is "basically Hitler".

On top of all of this and back to the thread's topic, it is not uncommon for the MSM to call for internet censorship. Remember CNN is currently owned by Time Warner Cable. Who is to say TWC will not throttle any sites critical of CNN while giving top loading speeds to CNN.com? Does that not kinda sound like a monopoly?

GalacticPirate
Posted on 11-29-17 07:41 AM Link | #91515
Posted by Belsaw
I'm sorry but I do think LFI have valid concerns here. There is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media. Populism isn't inherently bad depending on what populists are advocating. Huey Long was a populist. Bernie Sanders is a populist. Donald Trump on the other hand, is an example of a bad populist.

Prior to Donna Brazile's confirmation that the DNC rigged the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders was character asssassinated by much of the MSM. Interestingly, Fox News and Breitbart were kinda defending Sanders but that was because it fit their right-wing narrative. Anyway, the MSM would often make hit pieces on Sanders, accusing him of being a "Russian-paid propagandist" and even a "white supremacist enabler". I kid you not, that is not a satirical article. It is some r/nottheonion-tier fake news.

Then you have NBC falsely claiming "gamers are facilitating the Alt-Right". Well then, how do they explain COD:WWII and Wolfenstein? In the freedom of speech thread, I stated that the violent anarchists in Berkeley act eerily similar to the Nazi Brownshirts in Weimar Germany. According to The Daily Banter (ugh) I am "basically a fascist" for saying that. By their logic, anyone who compares Stalin to Hitler is "basically Hitler".

On top of all of this and back to the thread's topic, it is not uncommon for the MSM to call for internet censorship. Remember CNN is currently owned by Time Warner Cable. Who is to say TWC will not throttle any sites critical of CNN while giving top loading speeds to CNN.com? Does that not kinda sound like a monopoly?

LFI are a bunch of uneducated idiots who vote for a guy who said we can print money and put bosses in jail to end unemployment. No, they are not right. In France, media have to follow rules. If media purposefully said lies, they would basically get arrested, because media are not allowed to explicitly back up a precise ideology. Of course, the general writing can be more or less right, center or left-leaning, but well. And I'm saying LFI is basically calling those who criticize them "fake news" (doing exactly what they accuse the media of).

Belsaw
Posted on 11-29-17 09:44 AM Link | #91517
I looked up what I could find of their platform in English. I mostly agree with it save for a few things like completely phasing out nuclear energy. They want France to leave the imperialist NATO that causes massive crises by destabilizing countries and have a soft "Frexit" from the increasingly bureaucratic EU. If by "putting bosses in jail" you mean jailing corrupt corporatists who rule over France's equivalent of Wall Street, that's a good thing. These corporatists hinder small businesses and lobby for their own interests, at least here in the US. Bernie Sanders was right when he said it is unbelievable "young people go to prison for smoking marijuana but no one at Wall Street has gone to prison for almost completely destroying the economy".

I'm actually surprised LFI is considered "far-left" by European standards since from what I have gathered, they are not even near Lenin or Stalin or Mao.

Swingball
Posted on 11-29-17 02:42 PM (rev. 4 of 11-29-17 11:53 PM) Link | #91519
Posted by Belsaw
I looked up what I could find of their platform in English. I mostly agree with it save for a few things like completely phasing out nuclear energy. They want France to leave the imperialist NATO that causes massive crises by destabilizing countries and have a soft "Frexit" from the increasingly bureaucratic EU.

All these union exits can’t mean a good thing can they?

fiver
Posted on 11-29-17 08:53 PM Link | #91532
yo what does this have to do with net netruality

this is a forum you can make new threads y'know
-fiverpost™
[image]

Baby Luigi
Posted on 12-07-17 06:28 PM Link | #91786
The only people who want Net Neutrality removed are corporations, corporate shills, and idiots.

All three of these types of people (and a combination of these three types) have power in our government and that there's actually a danger of removing net neutrality makes me lose faith in humanity.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-07-17 07:12 PM Link | #91791
Posted by Baby Luigi
The only people who want Net Neutrality removed are corporations, corporate shills, and idiots.

I'm absolutely mystified that libertarians oppose net neutrality.

Look this nonsense spouted by libertarians.

http://libertyhangout.org/2017/11/libertarians-celebrate-death-net-neutrality/

Another ridiculous claim from the dramatists is that ending net neutrality will lead to more monopolies and corruption. But the truth of the matter is that net neutrality has caused increased monopolization and corruption. What net neutrality ultimately did was undermine the market allocation of goods by allowing the State to determine how the internet is managed. If libertarians are so quick to accept the market as the proper means of producing food, water, housing, etc., then why are they so hesitant to accept a free market for internet? Simply put, there is no logical reason to believe a free market in internet will create a monopoly.

It seems that advocates of net neutrality beg for a monopoly: the State. People that want the government to hijack the market for ISPs are just begging for the government to monopolize it either through the State, or through the State’s selected winner. This is where we get to corruption. If you have regulation, you have regulatory capture. I, as a big businessman, see that the government wants to regulate me, so I buy them off. It happens all the time. It happens more often than not.


How the hell does net neutrality encourage state regulation of the Internet? It's not explained here. Net neutrality is not giving preferences or penalties to sites. This by definition, is keeping regulation off the Internet.

Ultimately, Net Neutrality is nothing short of Internet Communism. It is the State ordering the expropriation of the entire ISP industry from the private sector to the public sector. It is a massive uptake in central planning in which private owners have no say. Libertarians have absolutely no reason, whether it be economic or ethical, to support such an evil and inefficient idea.


Bold:

WTF?

And more nonsense by libertarians

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/12/libertarians-are-against-net-neutrality.html

Properly defined, "net neutrality" means no discrimination of network traffic. But nobody wants that. A classic example is how most internet connections have faster download speeds than uploads. This discriminates against upload traffic, harming innovation in upload-centric applications like DropBox's cloud backup or BitTorrent's peer-to-peer file transfer. Yet activists never mention this, or other types of network traffic discrimination, because they no more care about "net neutrality" than Trump or Gingrich care about "traditional marriage".

Instead, when people say "net neutrality", they mean "government regulation". It's the same old debate between who is the best steward of consumer interest: the free-market or government.


It sees ISPs as inherently deceitful entities who will only serve their own interests, at the expense of consumers, unless the FCC protects consumers.


That's two libertarian arguments I found through a quick search on DuckDuckGo "libertarian and net neutrality". I'm sure there are other libertarians that support net neutrality with consistent reasons, but these libertarians are nonsensical and demonstrate no understanding what the hell they're talking about.

But libertarian ideology as a whole is mostly nonsense praising the free market and I don't buy the "free market can cure cancer"-type arguments from them at all.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 12-07-17 08:55 PM (rev. 2 of 12-07-17 08:58 PM) Link | #91799
If it's an example of Internet Communism, then bloody hell, it's the best form of communism ever made and the only form of communism that worked nearly as perfect as how Marx wanted it.

But...it's not even close to communism. It's pretty much the opposite of that. Government barely regulates the internet aside from extreme cases such as piracy (hi Mega Upload) and child pornography, and most of the websites you browse are created by private hosts and content makers. Most of the content from the internet is technically the same shit as a free market regulating itself that those libertarians fondle so dearly, where web traffic is king and views make people money rather than government intervention.

Marionumber1
Posted on 12-07-17 09:15 PM Link | #91803
The main part of the libertarian mindset that makes no sense is the single-minded railing against government power, while ignoring the harm that corporate power does when there's no government to keep it in check. Sometimes, they even try to make the ridiculous claim that corporations actually want big government and more regulations. Yet it's corporations, acting on their own in the "free market" utopia worshipped by libertarians, that destroy the environment, exploit workers, sell Internet traffic to the highest bidder, gamble with consumers' savings, and so on. All of this is ignored because "freedom from the government" (yet not from corporate abuses) is considered a high ideal in its own right.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-08-17 12:48 AM Link | #91805
Hell, yeah, I agree. I think government is a big bogeyman. It can go far, but from what I've seen so far, government is a good concept and it has stopped corporatists on their tracks. It's a problem when government is swayed by corporate lobbyists and is run by them, which is a serious problem today when it comes to both parties... I'd still argue that the Republicans are far worse. Democrats are sneakier by supporting banks over people, appointing twats like that Ajit guy and Alan Greenspan (whoever that green dude is) as Obama, but they're not going to try to pass sweeping tax code changes that help the wealthy or try to limit rights for every minority and woman ever. But on a whole, I want more government regulation that regulates in the best interests of consumers (like consumer protections) and less regulation if if it's not in the best interests of consumers (repealing net neutrality, though arguably, net neutrality is a government measure that ensures corporate people won't muck around with our internet but not direct government intervention as insane libertarians imply).

Democrats need populism to get back on track. We had Bernie, but...

See, we agree on that. I wish I can have more of a debate on issues we disagree with though. I'm not going to lie, I can't hold a good conversation if I don't know the subject too well and learning it requires a lot of parsing through history and that's time consuming.

Marionumber1
Posted on 12-08-17 08:35 AM Link | #91807
I think we agree on most issues, particularly domestic policy (social programs, regulations, taxes, etc.) and the antidemocratic nature of the political system. The main disagreements we tend to have are over foreign policy, like Russia, Syria, and Ukraine, and perhaps my more "conspiracy theory" beliefs such as media corruption, the JFK assassination, and the Franklin scandal. I've found very few people with whom I can completely ally: there are liberals that I normally agree with who are disturbingly supportive of the intelligence community and military-industrial complex, and Trump supporters who recognize the existence of a deep state but can't comprehend that Trump is a horrible demagogue who's part of it as well.

fiver
Posted on 12-08-17 02:05 PM Link | #91811
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
but they're not going to try to pass sweeping tax code changes that help the wealthy

do explain how the tax plan supports the wealthy.

I can't find how that makes sense anywhere lol
-fiverpost™
[image]

GalacticPirate
Posted on 12-08-17 03:32 PM Link | #91812
People who think Staline and Mao were far-left are far from the truth. They both were totalitarist dictators, who didn't even have a left-wing economical policy. But well, if you agree with the populists and conspirationnists saying the EU and NATO are evil, we can't agree. If France left the EU, we would basically get in the Zimbabwe's or in Venezuela's situation economically speaking. Did I mention Mélenchon's model for a country is Venezuela, the dictatorship that's bankrupt and where people can't find bread? Yes, LFI are far-right, and abandoning nuclear energy is certainly one of this things I disagree the less with in their program.
@LeftyGreenMario From the POV an economically liberal (pro-tax cuts, pro-companies), the Senate GOP's law doesn't make sense. It's litteral corruption to please the three or four biggest donators who give money to the GOP. The law in itself isn't even favorable for the rich people who earned their money by working and not by heritating. Plus, it'll increase the debt for absolutely no economical advantage. In short, whatever you are, Rep or Dem, Statist or Eco-Liberal, this law makes zero sense.
@Belsaw Politics in France are very different. In short, the more centrist you are (i.e. Macron/LaREM-leaning), the more economically liberal you are. The less centrist you are, the most Statist and populist you are. Instead of a Left vs. Right motif, we are now more in a Center vs. Far motive, as we can draw a lot of parallels between the speech of Mélenchon's castrist LFI (far-left) and Le Pen's fascist FN (far-right).

Belsaw
Posted on 12-08-17 04:07 PM Link | #91813
I think by "libertarians" you mean Libertarians. I do not consider Libertarians to be true liberatarians, same thing with Democrats not being considered true democrats snd Republicans not being true republicans. The Greens are probably the party that is closest to being true to their name (greens) although they're pretty anti-nuclear which is sad.

Also, the EU and NATO really suck. The faster these militarist-corporatist bureaucracies cease to exist, the better. They're essentislly Warsaw Pact 2.0. I say this not because I believe in outlandish right-wing conspiracy theories that it's some "communist takeover" but because they're all overreaching imperialist institutions regardless of poltical ideology and position on the political spectrum.

fiver
Posted on 12-08-17 05:16 PM Link | #91819
you know what also sucks? the UN

the UN tries to act like the big boy on the block with north korea, but in truth, they can't do anything.

they fucked up by giving 5 nations unlimited power, which is ridiculous in it's own right

china always comes to North Korea's defense, and nothing will stop them from pissing on everyone

it's sad, really
-fiverpost™
[image]

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-09-17 12:01 AM Link | #91839
Posted by fiver
do explain how the tax plan supports the wealthy.

I can't find how that makes sense anywhere lol

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/10/winners-and-losers-in-the-senate-gop-tax-plan/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/senate-tax-bill-cuts-taxes-of-wealthy-and-hikes-taxes-of-families-earning-under-75000-over-a-decade/

Uber wealthy people are the winners and the corporate tax rate will be lowered to 20 from 30ish percent. There are some winners in there but the losers there are pretty bad including the poor and those not making more than 75,000 a year, and this includes a sizeable 30 percent of the middle class. They seem to be shifting the burden of the tax cuts to the middle class. Also, very sneaky, they want to redefine abortion as "life begins at conception", allow drilling into Alaska wildlife refuge areas, and also try to repeal healthcare mandate just so they can please some of their irk like Susan Collins and John McCain, who, in support of this terrible bill, lost my respect for. I will not vote a single GOP person. They seem more concerned about their party than they are for their country.

Mind you, those tax cuts are made with "trickle-down economics" in mind, and trickle-down economics is the idea that cutting taxes for the wealthy will "trickle down" the wealth to the lower classes. In reality, the wealthy just pocket their profits. Not surprising.

Posted by Belsaw
I think by "libertarians" you mean Libertarians. I do not consider Libertarians to be true liberatarians, same thing with Democrats not being considered true democrats snd Republicans not being true republicans. The Greens are probably the party that is closest to being true to their name (greens) although they're pretty anti-nuclear which is sad.

"no true scotsman"

There are no "true" or "fake libertarians". These people are just loony aspects of the libertarian spectrum. I don't disassociate moonbats like Bill Maher from liberals and call him a "fake liberal", I just call people like him a stupid liberal.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Main - Serious discussion - net neutrality New reply

Page rendered in 0.031 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 29, rows: 234/234, time: 0.016 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2017-11-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.